prema devi vs State Of U.P — 244/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1), 61(2)(a). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMP010005372026

Filing Number

505/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

244/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District & Session Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

367

Police Station

KURAOLI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1), 61(2)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.prema devi

    Adv. Pratap Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of U.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    The District & Session Judge, Mainpuri rejected the bail application of Prerna Devi, accused under BNS sections 103(1) and 61(2)(A), finding the charges of serious nature involving alleged conspiracy and murder. The court determined that the accused actively participated in brutally assaulting the victim (resulting in multiple fractures and death from hemorrhagic shock) and that sufficient grounds existed to deny bail, as the crime constituted grave criminal conduct warranting custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Adj VI

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Adj VI

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 244/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District & Session Judge, Mainpuri rejected the bail application of Prerna Devi, accused under BNS sections 103(1) and 61(2)(A), finding the charges of serious nature involving alleged conspiracy and murder. The court determined that the accused actively participated in brutally assaulting the victim (resulting in multiple fractures and death from hemorrhagic shock) and that sufficient grounds existed to deny bail, as the crime constituted grave criminal conduct warranting custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case